Events convened on Thursday, 24 June 2004

International Conference for Renewable
Energies, Bonn 2004: Outcomes and
follow-up

Presented by the delegation of Germany

Moderating this side event, Karsten
Sach, Germany, explained that the
International Conference on
Renewable Energies (renewables 2004)
was borne out of an announcement by
German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder
at the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD) in 2002.

Martin Schöpe, Germany’s
Federal Ministry of Environment,
Nature Conservation and Nuclear
Safety, presented the Conference’s
outcomes: the Political Declaration;
the International Action Programme;
and Policy Recommendations. He
highlighted that the Political
Declaration represents the broad
consensus that was achieved among
the 154 governments at the
Conference, and reaffirms the
commitment to increase, with a sense
of urgency, the global share of
renewable energy. He noted that the
Declaration, inter alia, outlines
the principles for a follow-up
process and agrees on measurable
steps to be reported to the UN
Commission on Sustainable
Development. Regarding the
International Action Programme,
Schöpe drew attention to over 180
actions and commitments related to
policies for market development,
financing options, and capacity
building, that were voluntarily
submitted by governments,
international organizations, the
private sector, civil society and
other stakeholders. He highlighted
that several countries have adopted
renewable energy targets, including
Australia, Belgium, China, Cyprus,
Denmark, Egypt, Iran, Jordan,
Mexico, Morocco, the Philippines,
Senegal, South Africa, Spain,
Switzerland, Tunisia, Uganda and the
UK. Schöpe then outlined the Policy
Recommendations, which contain a
menu of policy options for national
governments, international
organizations, as well as
businesses, the finance sector and
civil society.

Emphasizing that energy
trends are changing and renewable
energy development is gaining
momentum, Harald Dovland, Norway’s
Ministry of the Environment,
highlighted that renewables 2004
provided a strong push for renewable
energy. Regarding the Political
Declaration, he noted that many
countries wanted a clear renewable
energy target, but that it was more
important to achieve consensus

Steve Sawyer, Greenpeace
International, expressed
disappointment that the EU did not
demonstrate stronger political
leadership in promoting renewable
energy at renewables 2004. He
highlighted the approximately US$2
billion in renewable energy
commitments pledged at the
Conference, and praised China, among
other countries, for adopting
renewable energy targets.

Richard Hosier, Global
Environment Facility (GEF), drew
attention to the GEF’s commitment to
provide US$100 million for renewable
energy projects in developing
countries. He concluded by
expressing hope that developing
countries might avoid the
unsustainable energy pathway taken
by developed countries and leapfrog
to renewables.

Discussion: In the ensuing
discussion, participants addressed:
the role of renewable energy in the
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM);
the World Bank Extractive Industry
Review; the adequacy of the proposed
follow-up process for renewables
2004; and the need to work on energy
efficiency. One participant noted
that US$2 billion for renewable
energy is tiny compared to the
trillions of dollars that will be
invested in the energy sector in the
coming decades.

Martin Schöpe, Germany’s Federal
Ministry of Environment, Nature
Conservation and Nuclear Safety,
highlights that the measures committed
to in the International Action Programme
would save over 1.2 billion tonnes of
carbon emissions.

Edwin Aalders, IETA, explained that
the presenters of this side event
would discuss their experiences in
developing CDM projects, including
lessons learned and suggestions for
improving the process.

Michiel ten Hoopen,
EcoSecurities, presented the CDM
approval process from a project
developer’s perspective. He provided
a brief overview of EcoSecurities,
noting that they assist in
developing CDM and JI projects.
Hoopen reviewed the methodology
process, highlighting that: the
bottom-up process is effective; the
approval process is slow and risky
for project developers;
methodologies are often too specific
and consolidation is necessary; and
the status of pending and accepted
methodologies are uncertain due to
consolidation. Hoopen questioned
what the additionality test would be
for consolidated methodologies and
highlighted that there are large
differences in additionality tests
between methodologies. He
underscored ways to manage risk in
the approval process, including
waiting for the approval of
consolidated methodologies if time
allows, using an already approved
methodology, and ensuring the
quality of the methodology. He
concluded that the CDM approval
process is still risky for project
developers, and that the process
will become easier and will improve
with more consolidation
methodologies.

Irma Lubrecht, General Surveillance
Company (SGS), said that SGS provides
validation and verification for CDM
projects and noted that they include all
relevant gases and sectors. She stressed
that although her presentation would
provide criticism, she believes that
validation is on the right track. On
baseline methodologies, Lubrecht said
that the validation cycle is unclear to
project developers and urged project
consultants to keep project developers
up to speed. Lubrecht spoke on
additionality, noting that: most project
developers have difficulty proving
additionality; since additionality
requirements are under revision,
guidance is lacking and project
developers must use Annex 1 to the tenth
meeting of the Executive Board (EB 10)
for clarification until the new
requirements are published. She noted
that monitoring plans are incomplete and
lack data, and that greenhouse gas
calculations are over-estimated and
untransparent. Lubrecht insisted that in
order to receive verification from the
Executive Board (EB), guidelines must be
followed, and said the new Project
Development Document (PDD) is under
review and the project should be
discussed with the validator at an early
stage. She concluded that although her
talk contained criticism, she wanted to
end on a positive note by highlighting
that the first project will be
registered soon.

Georg Bï¿½rsting, CDM Executive
Board, said that it is the EB’s
responsibility to synchronize the CDM
including the core issues such as
approving methodologies and approving
and registering project activities. He
stressed that creating the guidelines
for the CDM project cycle has been a
“learning by doing” process. Bï¿½rsting
stated that the CDM EB is now entering a
new phase, noting that projects are
being submitted and project activities
can now be registered. Regarding
methodologies, he said that it is a
bottom-up approach, but that it is time
consuming, and stressed that the EB
needs to review the methodology process.
He said that the EB is trying to develop
a consolidation methodology in order to
help the project developers. Noting the
concern of some project developers that
methodologies may be too project
specific, Bï¿½rsting highlighted the
consolidation of methodologies as a
solution. He concluded by saying that
the EB hopes that the consolidation
effort will help speed up the project
approval process, highlighting that the
CDM Methodologies Panel Chair has taken
it upon himself to review this matter
further.

Discussion: In the ensuing
discussion, participants addressed PDD
quality, the utilization of existing
methodologies, additionality in relation
to national legislation, the benefits of
consolidation methodologies, investment
additionality, deadlines for submitting
new methodologies, guidelines for the
monitoring plan, and the use of CDM
guidelines for Joint Implementation
projects.

Panelists discuss the concerns and
successes of CDM project preparation.